Excuse the double-post. I wish to mention to CJ Morgan that there was a little jest in that last post and I hope it was taken on friendly terms, and to Examinator, that I have respect for Federation as well as our Western Australian Foundation Day when my great-great-great-great Grand Mother arrived on the Calista inside her mother's womb, but history recalls how we never forget to repeat the same mistakes if we do not remember to celebrate the good things as well as make amends for the bad things in our pasts, and patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.

I cling to January 26th because I have no energy to grasp onto anything else here on this fatal shore, but there is more capacity for patience in a vital prognosis for one's future, so I am indubitably biased.

Also, Examinator, I saw your tongue-in-cheek usage of the word 'transparent' earlier today, so I would like to exclude you from the assault on the demise of English post earlier because I saw the humour in it.

Good luck to you all and sorry if my SoH is rather eccentric at times.

" ... As stated by the Chief Justice of the Australian high court in
1992: "The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Australian people". ... "

We really do need a new Constitution I think. The reason I say this is that even now, appeals to *Lizzy Winza* in council are still enshrined in the Con, a fact about which has also been noted by a member of the High Court.

However, the australia act prohibits further appeals to the so called privvy council. And yet, this ALTERATION to the Constitution was not done by way of referendum, but rather the slime in canberra at the time merely asked the poms to make another act, the australia act, to overtrump the constitution, which of course in definition means that its not really a proper constitution at all.

And if the recognition of the right of the australian people to determine any alterations of the constitution was so easily dismissed, whose to say that the poms can't just write up some other piece of bog roll to overtrump the australia act?

The overturning of "terror nullius" on Mabo was also the recognition of the fact that the original people were not animals. And of course, as the law at the time required either a treaty or a declaration of war, coupled with the fact that neither was applied, plus of course that as a soveriegnty issue the privvy council very likely would end up having to be involved by way of appeal from the high court, makes the whole affair look very smelly to me.

Its what a I call "the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom."

The Solution: !VOTE 1 *Green Browny for Prez*!

and create a new true independence day with enshrined human rights to the benefit of all.

;-)

Sense,

If Australians did celebrate March the 3rd, 1986, in any way, they would be celebrating the virtues of legalistic connivance, wholesale deception of the public, bipartisan-politicianist supremacism, and the exchange of their legislative and constitutional heritage for a proverbial bowl of pottage.

The Parliament of the United Kingdom had absolutely no business purporting to act as it did in any way dealing with the various Australian States' Request and Consent Acts in late 1985. The Statute of Windsor 1931 made that very clear.

In co-ordinating the various Australian States' Request and Consent Acts for presentation to the UK Parliament in 1985, the Commonwealth acted unconstitutionally.

Section 118 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia says:

"118. Full faith and credit shall be given,
throughout the Commonwealth to the laws,
the public Acts and records,
and the judicial proceedings of every State."

The Australia Act Request and Consent Act (Queensland) 1985 purported to make alterations in the law with respect to the Governor of that State. The Queensland Constitution Act at that time provided that any law proposing any alteration to the law as it related to the Governor of Queensland had first to be approved at a State referendum. No such referendum was ever held.

The Queensland Constitution Act was a public Act of a State. The Commonwealth was bound by the Constitution to give that Act full faith and credit. In submitting the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1986 [and yes, I know its confusing because this was actually done in 1985, but it was meant to be so] to the UK Parliament the Australian government of the day not only made a mockery of the Constitution and the Statute of Westminster 1931, but acted unconstitutionally.

The Australia Act 1986 is all about circumventing the Constitution.

Doubtless with the approach of November 11th the minds of many in the bipartisan politicianist-supremacist movement will be turning, instead of to the commemoration of Remembrance Day, to self-serving thoughts as to the Constitutional provisions for Dismissal, and how to avoid being subject to one.

Hi Seano - absolutely no offence taken. I enjoyed the joke :)

More seriously,

DreamOn: << We really do need a new Constitution I think. >>

I agree, and Forrest's subsequent constitutional ramble reinforces that opinion. However, I can't see it happening in my lifetime.

First up - the High Court has determined that the Australia Act 1986 was validly enacted . So forget the conspiracy theories .

Prior to 5am ( GMT ) on the 3rd March 1986 an Act of the British Parliament could and would be enforced on Australian Citizens by Australian Courts - as long as the " manner and form provisions " to pass that Act were complied with ie : the request and consent of the Australian Government was received first . If those provisions were met then the British Law would be enforceable in Australia .

After the Australia Acts came into effect no ( future ) law passed by the British Parliament would be valid in Australia .

That is the legal Sovereignty of the British Parliament over Australia was terminated . ( Not in 1901 , 1920 ,1931 ,1942 or 1949 but in 1986 ).

Forrest was making sense of it now.

The last sentence of the Australia Act 1986, Act No.142 of 1985, assented to on 4 December 1985, says:

"17. (2) This Act shall come into operation on a day and at a time to be fixed by Proclamation.'"

In the Note numbered 1, (fudgingly indicated in the verbatim quote above with a single inverted comma standing in for a superscript '1') the only note to the Act, that immediately follows the last sentence in the Act we are told:

"..... [the Act] came into operation on 3 March 1986 at 5:00 AM Greenwich Mean Time (see Gazette 1986, No. S85, p. 1)...."

Forrest thought the reference to GMT must have to do with something having happened elsewhere in the world for it to have needed to be tied down to the UK time zone. He checked his old 20th century calendar, which told him that 3 March 1986 was a Monday.

Guessing that the Proclamation might have something to do with Australia (it was the Australia Act, after all), and within Australia, Canberra, the nation's capital, Forrest's mind fell to the task of calculating what time 5:00 AM GMT would be equivalent to in Canberra. That would have been 3:00 PM EST, or 4:00 PM AEDST, Monday 3 March 1986.

Forrest thought he remembered HM the Queen Herself having signed the Proclamation in Canberra. It had all happened on Sunday 2 March 1986, on a beautiful autumn afternoon. The Queen Herself had signed the Proclamation. On a Sunday.

As at 2 March 1986 the acts of the Sovereign were still subject to the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act (UK), which Act by virtue of the Imperial Acts Application Act (NSW) extended those provisions to the Sovereign being in Australia at that time. One of the provisions of that legislation was that any instrument signed by the Sovereign on a Sunday was null and void and of no effect.

Celebrating March 3rd would be celebrating a deception of the Sovereign in her grants.